You basically want to make three people in charge of key parts of the game and make it so only those people can talk to the GM? You have the ranked system all over again.

Also, exactly where do the qualifications for these "sub-GMs" come from? A GM runs the game, A GM knows what happens if the players do X, splitting that role among 4 people only ensures chaos in the upper echelons.

In the end, I am still seeing an attempt to give certain community members power over other community members.

Your concern seems to be (once again) a paranoid belief that one single action would unmake the clan and that without some sort of executive position in place to veto said action, this would inevitably occur. You are (unsuprisingly) ignoring the fact that such positions in the previous game, ranks, did more harm than good in this regard, wherein your office in particular caused a great deal of problems in the game by refusing to take any relevant action whatsoever. We cannot afford to have a single paranoid officer stall the entire game process because of her personal opinions on matters.

Majority rules, if the majority is stupid, then we get our just reward. It's that simple.

Trey'la in Path to Power.We gotta go, We've got nothing to lose, now time has come for us to get out.We gotta go, If we're going down, well let's go down in flames!

In my mind, it's the GM who determines this(the qualifications) and if you are a "sub-GM" you are not permitted to play the game until you stop being a GM. That removes an aspect of "Conflict of Interests".

I keep understanding what i'm reading as, in terms of what the issues lay to: "we don't want leaders. we were unhappy with the ranked systems."

i am trying to say: " we need leaders, because what we had before was a flawed system that was not efficient. we should not scrap the idea of there being leaders entirely, that is an extreme. what we need is a system in place where there can be structure, and again, efficiency."

Trey'la, you bring up a good point that if we as a whole make bad decisions we will suffer. On this, we agree completely. The difference from before to what we may be facing in ptp 2.0 is, we had some, if flawed, structure before. As it stands we'll be scattered to do as we will D&D style, it seems. I would like to prevent us making collective bad decisions by a system being put in place that is not, as you think, a chokehold on our freedoms as players. It would be a support system to which there exists a chain of command as well as powers put in place to reduce negative impact on the game from bad decisions that may use resources or put the clan at risk, such as combat/warfare.

However, it is not intended and should not be used as a power grab. My original postings said that this system was originating from my belief we can't have just one GM. If for any reason thalar would run into any problems we, as players, will suffer in our game. We should agree to respect thalar's excellent track record, but understand that she is just one person with a life of her own, not managing a handful of people but 250. my reasonings stem from both person belief and personal experience beyond path to power. To share, There have been studies done by both the military and business corporations on how far you can push someone's limits as a leader. They found that with a prime leader, maximum person management stops at 30 people for each person. This means that optimally, to reduce stress on everyone, we should have 8 GM's. This does not mean that we, as players of path to power, need 8 main leaders but rather 8 avenues of buffer to work through to optimize ourselves for ptp 2.0.

Putting aside studies, facts, etc:

Blackshade, you say that if we had the additional 3 gm's i mentioned (warfare, economics, politics) that if they did not play the game, it would remove conflict of interest: on this i agree. we have already seen these accusations flung at madea, it is a solid part of our community out-of-game history. But as i understand it, Thalar will continue to play her character in-game.

This can go one of two ways:

one way is: as i mentioned before, we will see disgruntled players begin to hold it against Thalar, who no longer has the "good cop bad cop" routine with madea. She can even claim she can handle what we as the community will throw at her, but i severely doubt she will be able to maintain that for long, or, it will simply take one bad day to bring it all crashing down. This would be the same if we had those three GM's i suggested play as well.

second way: Thalar and the three gm's i suggested do not play. They become simply a managerial part of the game, to influence the game itself directly to remove a conflict of interests.

However, what i am suggesting is that we give the power to Thalar, and the three gm's i suggested.Thalar is part of drowtales staff, so her position would unlilkely ever be removed- however, the three GM's can't be expected to stay around forever, nor could we expect a removal of human greed/vanity/pride. The three GM's would be working under Thalar and she can remove them at any point in time if she feels they are doing a bad job. And under those three GM's, we would have a system similar to the one we have in ptp 1: guild leaders who act as the ranked had, but they can only bring major decisions forward to represent their group of interest, e.g., warriors represent scouts and warriors. foods & services represent harvesters, crafters, smiths, techs, etc. these guild leaders are exactly that- meant to lead in-game, the other players. It would not necessarily mean they get extra privellege, but rather that, for gameplay sake, if Anjhali was to go and counsel the clan on major decisions such as: "are we going to war with X Clan?" we would see the warriors guild leader at front with whomever was also involved within the warriors. They are figureheads, in essence, nothing more, but with duties to represent the interests of the group they are elected for.

I'm still vehemently against having leaders, as I've little interest in being told how to run things by someone. The idea that me and my friends can work together independently on projects we like without a ranked decreeing that it's not worth that sections time in their eyes is something that I WANT in PtP2. Plus, I want to avoid all the unnecessary drama that comes with the elections. Don't say it won't happen- it will.

blackshade10 wrote:I'm still vehemently against having leaders, as I've little interest in being told how to run things by someone. The idea that me and my friends can work together independently on projects we like without a ranked decreeing that it's not worth that sections time in their eyes is something that I WANT in PtP2. Plus, I want to avoid all the unnecessary drama that comes with the elections. Don't say it won't happen- it will.

firstly, wow, you read fast, that large post is barely 45 seconds old.

I understand that there is a lot of disinterest in what we had before. I think from it, even at the time, there were people hurt by being unable to lead or be "heroes" or "leaders". There was a lot of vying for attention and a lot of power grabs. So i agree, it would happen, it's inevitable people will see the system as a chance for them to have influence on the game.

But, you have to understand there is a flaw to having none at all: On the other side of the coin, if we had no leaders at all and just the one leader: one person in charge will do the same thing. to re-post:

However, it is not intended and should not be used as a power grab. My original postings said that this system was originating from my belief we can't have just one GM. If for any reason thalar would run into any problems we, as players, will suffer in our game. We should agree to respect thalar's excellent track record, but understand that she is just one person with a life of her own, not managing a handful of people but 250. my reasonings stem from both person belief and personal experience beyond path to power. To share, There have been studies done by both the military and business corporations on how far you can push someone's limits as a leader. They found that with a prime leader, maximum person management stops at 30 people for each person. This means that optimally, to reduce stress on everyone, we should have 8 GM's. This does not mean that we, as players of path to power, need 8 main leaders but rather 8 avenues of buffer to work through to optimize ourselves for ptp 2.0.

What it comes down too is that no official system should exist for leaders- natural leaders shall blossom. Some will not want to follow others, and will go off with others- that's alright. That's fine. They should not be forced to wade through a leader they dislike because the majority supported him or her. If I want to follow a leader because I think he's right- then it works fine. A mechanical system is unnecessary.

blackshade10 wrote:What it comes down too is that no official system should exist for leaders- natural leaders shall blossom. Some will not want to follow others, and will go off with others- that's alright. That's fine. They should not be forced to wade through a leader they dislike because the majority supported him or her. If I want to follow a leader because I think he's right- then it works fine. A mechanical system is unnecessary.

I can see that you are letting ptp 1 ruin what i am trying to convey here.

It's a romanticized thought but, think about this scenario:

You have natural leaders. these leaders will want control, or you will have the leaders who people flock to and listen. these are the two types of leaders that basically exist, anywhere.

with the softer leader, people will support him or her, but there are other leaders, as the first i explained, who will want control and there will be people who support that type of person as well. This is where the clashes ensue, and have already been ensuing in our community for years.

With a system in place where there is established positions for both types of leaderships to fill, its not a matter of you "waiting", it's a matter of who can do the job best. And this is why i said, it would be a vote-in, vote-out system, with thalar ultimately in charge of those types of decisions. What we lacked and what caused a bad taste in everyone's mouth was a lack of execution on who was genuinely doing a ruddy job and no one bothered to try to vote people out- and when they did- it caused drama.

If you implement a system from the get-go with established rules and lines, you won't run into as many problems as implementing it later. If you establish a system with a chain of command procedure, things become mroe organized and run more efficiently. but to dismiss the entire argument based on, "it won't work at all, it will inevitably have flaw at one point", is just to say that "the sky is blue and eventually it will rain." there is no such thing as a perfect system, anywhere, but we can't jump from extreme to extreme either.

Again: We should agree to respect thalar's excellent track record, but understand that she is just one person with a life of her own, not managing a small handful of people but 250. Having no support system in place for her will be asking for failure, as well.

It's very unlikely that all 250 people will be active and participate..at best half will be mere spectators and other half with be active players..and that half of active players will most likely never bother to read the forums or read the shoutbox.

A survivalist should not be a pessimist, he should always be positive, happy and enjoying life more than anyone else because he understands that each minute of peace we have is precious and unique, and he never takes it for granted.

Xenon, forgive me for not reading every reply of yours, as some of them were long and there's only so many ways you can say the same thing. I know it's probably been a little frustrating to double back.

There is nothing wrong with having leadership in a game. Every large game has them. Every online game has someone you can go to for issues. But that's the thing, you go to them for issues, and they keep folks from abusing the game, but they don't run the show. The difference with PTP1 is that the ranked did run the show, were paying extra to do so, and not all of them were qualified to do this for various reasons. It was an up and grab Charlie Foxtrot, leaving things open for corruption and in some cases, conflict. And when I say corruption, I mean from all sides. The amount of savagery that ensued the moment a position opened was absolutely ridiculous and disgusting to watch. It didn't take me long to decide I didn't ever want to be a Ranked, because being above such a heavily flawed system (where ranked decisions could pretty much be ousted by the clan, making their efforts pointless) was simply too much of a headache.

The only thing I ever debated on running for was a possibility of a merchant, because I have an actual educational background (albeit small) concerning business. But I digress, this really isn't my point.

I will have to disagree on there needing to be leaders in this game for it to run, however, I do not believe Thalar should be running the show by herself. It's taxing to run anything alone, but my idea is less controlling and more moderating/mediating.

- I believe that the forums should hold forced utilization. In order to post your suggestion, you MUST present it first and gather supporters. Unlike before, where arguments could go on and on, a member(s) would need only so many supporters to back them. Remember, all decisions must be approved by Thalar anyway, so sitting around a bitching at each other for days on end will be eliminated. You don't have to agree, it doesn't matter. What will matter is the group presenting the idea and whether or not Thalar thinks it works. If you cannot gather...say 3-4 extra individuals (Kern says the more the easier it'll be, but one or two people isn't going to get a job done, let's face it) then you should not be posting your option.

- What is needed is mediators/moderators, not leaders. Individuals who can watch the mass chaos and bring it some order, NOT try to control mass actions. Someone who keeps in contact and, after working with Thalar, will have an understanding of what could and could not go through. They could offer suggestions/advice, and if they know something is going to automatically get rejected due to whatever reason, they can put the smack down on it early, with a viable explanation, and move on. Of course, these would be individuals Thalar trusts to speak as her voice, but if members are that pissy about it, they'll know where to go.

Kern's system allows for anyone to post a suggestion no matter how ridiculous, because if it doesn't gather supporters it won't go through and GM has final word. This is flawed, because it means more work for Thalar when something can be set up and established to dampen the blow, so to speak. You can split suggestions up by Work Field, with a few moderators for each section.

Another way is to treat suggestions/plans like you would for a RP character submission: You present the plan/character, get advice from helpers or other members, gather supporters, and the Moderator gives you the OK before the deadline. In the end, no moderator can honestly STOP you from posting if Kern's system stays in place, but some organization is needed, I agree with Xenon on that.

As for how moderators are selected, that should be the GM's job. If she wanted, she could have individuals submit applications and select who she thinks would be best. I think Thalar is a great leader, and would choose wisely from the list. This keeps power hungry people at bay.

And before the "I bet you want to apply for this yourself" accusations come out: I have a writing career I'm working on. I have a novel due out this June and I'm currently writing full time. I also will be managing other things, I do not have the time nor the patience to deal with you all in a position of power. Especially for free. ♥

“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau

the system i presented doesn't have to be taken as the end all, from this conversation i only want us to see that there is a need for -something- in place rather than -nothing-. so, thank you, catriana~

*nods* I figured as much. It seemed like you wanted a solid discussion on how to establish some organization to the chaos and presented your idea, which was derailed and smacked down with accusations of vying for power and other such nonsense that had nothing really to do with your goal/agenda. I didn't see too many people offer any real support/expansion of what you were trying to do, so there be my .02

So yeah, I definitely agree with you, there needs to be something in place.

“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau

This is a pretty active forum. Addressing some concerns all players have, the most important is control. In this new social experiment we all have control. We can, will do what we want, when we want, and how we want. Kind of cool.

Now unlike ranked system in ptp1 we must try to convince others of a what we consider a worthy project, large or small. We must show it’s worth with thought. Those who want to join in on a project in the making will, those who wish to do something else will. We now have to keep track of our own stuff. If I gather books I have to know what they are, how many and in what condition there in ect. Bean counters will be happy.

The rest seem to be just words vying for, or to convince others of control of the group, be it the clan or sub house within the clan, or just a group or relic hunters, let’s try the system in ptp2 at least for a time, then decide if we wish a leader. In the end remember we can do what we want, even choose or make a leader. Granted as said before they will be temp leaders, lasting only as long as the good idea lasts. Personally I do not what to start with a small group of players with the power to delegate. It rubs me the wrong way, is to me, too open to abuse, and can silence another player on the most basic of questionable morals.

In the end and at this moment we are like Neoguri, a base, what we add to it is what we will become.

At the last take this will you. This is a game, we have paid our monies, and expect to be entertained.

I also don´t want more or less leaders with the power to stop player projects at once aka one opinion over many.I remember that Kern wrote that *key positions* in PtP 2.0. will be filled by NPCs so that we have a Warmaster NPC and an Ambassador NPC while An'Jhali as pour Illhar is the last instance.So players probably won´t be able to take over such powerful positions and if Thalar wants help then it´s up to her who to select to help her and what their work will be. It would be better if it´s only guiding/advising and not interacting/rejecting at the players idea.

For example lets take the Sargs. In PtP it happend three times that several people, sometimes over 10 persons wanted that we meet with the sargs leader for diplomatic issues. However, that never happend as the one in Ambassador charge delegated it further away cause it wasn´t a urgent case. That´s nothing against you, Xexe, as i think as well that back then there were first no good opportunity to talk to them and second it was to risky to do so for your own and your escorts lives.However, there were people who wanted that talk to happen and it was asked three times.

Now in PtP 2.0. those people could select one or some of their group to meet with them to act as diplomats. As long as those 10 people vote for it, it will get through.But here it is where we need guiding and advising, interacting and rejecting like in the beta shouldn´t be there as it destroys the 10 people motivation to play any further if their moves/plans/ideas are always ignored by one or two persons.In PtP 2.0. there should be someone telling them, that can be Thalar or one of he selected *admins*, that this is a risky idea and can be very dangerous for their CS lives. If that willaffect the 10 peoples determination or not an if they still do this action or not, should still be up to those 10 individuals.

The biggest problem i see for myself in PtP 2.0 is not in the *action* department aka do we need a few people as leaders who tell the rest who are not what to do and what not, but in the *ressource* deaprtment.

It looks like this:

Ressource jobs - Tool/stuff making jobs who use ressources - jobs who use those tools

Ressource jobs would be like miner, harvester and most likely as new one: wood cutter

Tool/stuff making jobs are Smiths, Techs and Crafters

Jobs who use those tools/ressource are Warriors, Scouts and Builders

Now here comes the problem. We see that we need miners and harvesters so that smiths and techs get enough ore, gems and other stuff so that warriors gets their armour and scouts their crossbows. We kow that smiths can build some toold for harvesters to make their work easier as well as techs can build some tools to make miners being more efficent. Warriors will protect and scouts scout the area.But now what if follow scenario will happen:

We got 10 unit of ore in the store room, of the 8 miners we got only 4 turned in their action to get more ore. With their tools each miner makes 2 units rsulting in 8 extra units.Now the smiths turn those 18 units into steel resulting in 9. But here comes the problem, the scouts demand more arrows as they don´t have enough for their upcoming feral hunt, but some smiths are already busy making steel while the rest had promised/works already together with the techs to turn those 9 steel bars into golem stuff to build a golem.What if other remaining smiths says *sorry, i´m busy making armour.* or *making arrows is boring, i already promised to build on that golem*. The scouts would stand there with no arrow at the end of the turn though the ressources where there, the ones who could make them didn´t as well as they couldn´t make arrows as the steel bars were already used for the techs golem.In PtP 2.0 i believe we might get into such situations some times were not enough ressources needs to be split between several projects OR one or two projects needs to be halt for one or two turns.

Now a way to avoid that would be that some players who are harvesters be miners for this turn so that enough ore can be produced to be turned into enough steel. But we know that if this will result that the harvesters first can´t do their original job as well as gain no level/exp in their original job.This is where the Multis (many chara Player) and Sings (one chara Player) would come in as Kern already mentioned that feature.The multis got one main and maybe two sub charas. If those multis see that there´s a problem in another job branch, they can halt their main and use one of their sub to help out there.Fpr example a warrior main who also is a smith sub and a crafter who´s a miner sub. The crafter player let his crafter rest a turn as he can only use one of his charas, so that he can help getting more ore. The Warrior will not train/patrol this turn as he sees it more important to make arrows for the scouts as smith though that´s not his main charaThe SIngs aka the ones who only use one chara aka only one job are high-leveled specialists, so a level 10 smith who decides to make arrows will be able to make 10 in one turn while a level 2 sub smith can only do 2. Also a high-level warrior/crafter may be able to do the share of their colleagues who are helping out in other jobs, so could a level 12 crafter do the extra work of the now missing level 6 crafter who helps out as level 3 miner right now.

That´s just how i see it. If we get many projects/different ideas we gonna need a ressource system to avoid that some groups ge superior control over those or deny other new groups the ressources they need.That´s where admins could come in if Thalar needs them.

I say for now, we should wait till PtP 2.0 starts and wait if Thalar cannot do the whole work in the first month.But as someone already said, only half of those 250 plays and around half of them are more then 3 times per week in the forum. So i believe Thalar will be able to do most work.Let´s wait and see and discuss till then how we want to name our new home/settlement. It needs to be a new name instead of Ther'avare, something fitting our new made home above under the sun and in the forrest.

With all due respect Xe, no, I'm really not letting PtP1 ruin what you're trying to say, not in the slightest. I just believe that leaders are those who make themselves leaders- and that happens when you can rally support for something and it succeeds.

That's all.

Thus, I really don't see the need for what you suggest is all. Cat's idea seems interesting, and I think that'll also simply develop on its own(Much like how Taruna is doing it right now. She's not a rank anymore, but she still has gotten people who want to be warriors together and organized them, all on her own.)

blackshade10 wrote:With all due respect Xe, no, I'm really not letting PtP1 ruin what you're trying to say, not in the slightest. I just believe that leaders are those who make themselves leaders- and that happens when you can rally support for something and it succeeds.

That's all.

Thus, I really don't see the need for what you suggest is all. Cat's idea seems interesting, and I think that'll also simply develop on its own(Much like how Taruna is doing it right now. She's not a rank anymore, but she still has gotten people who want to be warriors together and organized them, all on her own.)

**nods** My biggest thing would really be the forced utilization of the forums. Because many folks just join and don't contribute unless they want screen time, and that's to throw in some random LA option. Eventually Kern just started ignoring them, but the times he didn't kinda screwed us. I think the forums should play a larger role in the game's functions, because it's the only official way to communicate, which is important for working as a team. Beyond that, it's all up to how Thalar wants to run it.

The only thing about folks coming in and taking a natural leadership position is they're not working 'officially' and, more than likely, aren't working with Thalar. Being 'official' matters here. Yes, Taruna isn't getting a lot of crap because the game really isn't going anywhere...but once PtP2 starts, the more ambitious folks will start stepping in and on her toes...and what can she do about it? In the end, her voice doesn't mean much when it holds no 'official' weight. She'll still hold some control with those who are loyal to her, but that's about it.

In the end, some 'official' form of organization should be used, just to keep people from being overly ambitious and starting forum wars in a vie for power over another 'natural' leader.

“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau